Ignore what he says, but pay attention to what he does. If the article is truthful, some employers are lowering their operating costs by either cutting hours or terminating employees; others are raising prices of their products. The former is bad for employment, the latter for customers. As prices elevate, they approach the marginal value of eating out. Eating out is very elastic, so if the prices rise too high, the companies could fail, causing more unemployment.

It's a fine line. My personal opinion is that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, but more for entry level, part time jobs for teenagers etc. If we raise the minimum wage to a level that provides a living wage (assuming 40 hour work week), then it becomes complicated since a lot of jobs are part time. To earn a living wage, someone would have to have multiple jobs, which generally sucks if you work in the food industry. It's a complicated problem, with lots of legacy baggage and viewpoints. Providing a living wage sounds great, but I think there's lots of issues when you're dealing with transient employees who don't want to work full time, don't have many skills, etc.